How about a new Logo?

Graphics dynamics-wise, the last by a long shot. Although the Science vs God presumption is inappropriate. Many see no conflict.I'd prefer the banner "Evolution versus Creation" (with its typeface) of the current than the "EvC" of the new. Although the looser images of the current allow for it more than the clean lines of the last of the proposed. In any case, I'd work on the EvC typeface if retaining "EvC" as opposed to a banner. Its a bit bulky and concentrated in the centre. Stretching it out a litte and reducing height might help to maintain balance.(all imho)The current is better than them all imho (were we seeing it for the first time as an option). It has a more interesting colour scheme that fits with the colour scheme of the rest of the page. Red/white/blue is a classic graphic combination (the US flag is the most instantly recognisable graphic symbol in the world). The graphics also strike a good balance in the debate divide without supposing a science/God conflictLooking up at that current one, I'd dump the "EvC discussion and controversy" bit to the right and expand the logo across the full width of the page. Its unbalanced as it is.

How many here are in a postion to suppose themselves able to evaluate the science in order to be sure that evolution (scientifically) occurred. A mere handful.The rest? Evolutionism explains it best.If you don't agree, a short essay describing how mutation is sufficient to result in the diversity we see around us would suffice as rebuttal. Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

Sorry Jar.I have a high flying graphic artist for a sister and have picked up little bits over the years as to what constitutes graphic art. And if she were looking at the options she would plump for either the existing or the last proposed as meriting mention.I would guess she would agree with me that the original, graphic artisted-ly would win hands down - losing only because it is "old"It has essential elements: a depiction of evolution with is jaw agape - consuming without fear or favour. It has one of the most beautiful images we have seen (a representation of that famous Apollo photo). And a maelstrom in the middle representing both the debate and either way it came about. And sat atop: the purpose of the site in no uncertain terms.The best new candidate (judging by the opinion so far), although tasteful, cool and crisp (if needing some polishing) represents a far more polarized view and tends to suppose some of the answers we are supposed to be questioning.

Original (barring contenders)Edited by iano, : No reason given.

On reflection, the best contender would be on the way to winning an award were the purpose of this site not debate but instead depicting an established entity. It is visually very arresting. The colour chosed attractive and modern (without looking like it will age badly). Some work on the text is all that is requiredCompliments to the (oops) creator

Or the boat could really be pushed out. Catch this for 10 seconds or soBethinking.org - making sense of the big questions about life - bethinking.org

Does the link not work? Did for me. I mean the dynamic logo